TB8-26862

RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-26862 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person who is the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, ON Appel instruit / entendu à Date of decision July 27, 2020 Date de la décision Panel Joel Bousfield Tribunal Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal Faiq Watan Yar Conseil de la personne en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION OVERVIEW [1] This is the decision in the appeal of XXXX XXXX XXXX (appellant). The appellant is a citizen of Pakistan from Karachi. He appeals a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision dated September 28, 2018, rejecting his claim for refugee protection. He is requesting that the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside the RPD's negative determination and find that he is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. In the alternative, he requests that the RAD refer the matter back to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel. He has not requested to submit new evidence or an oral hearing. DETERMINATION [2] The RAD dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).1 BACKGROUND Basis of Claim [3] The appellant was allegedly involved with an organization, the XXXX XXXX XXXX, which helped poor families, Hindus and Christians in Sindh province villages. He fears persecution by Sunni Muslim religious extremists and the Taliban because he complained to the police about their attempts to forcibly convert Hindus to Islam. The rest of the central allegations in the case are summarized in paragraphs [3] - [12] of the RPD decision. RPD Decision [4] The RPD rejected the claim because it found the central allegations not credible. ANALYSIS Determinative Issue [5] The determinative issue in this appeal is therefore whether the RPD erred in assessing the appellant's credibility. For the following reasons, the RAD finds that the RPD's decision is correct. [6] In rendering this decision, the RAD has done an independent assessment of the record. The RAD is reviewing the RPD decision on a standard of correctness. Ignoring evidence [7] The appellant argues that the RPD ignored his personal supporting documents - income tax papers, a membership certificate with the Karachi Chamber of Commerce, police reports, newspaper reports, and affidavits from family members.2 He argues that the RPD should have considered these documents and that it would have found the central allegations credible if it had not ignored these documents. [8] The RAD disagrees with this argument. The RPD did consider these documents but discounted them because it found that the appellant was not a credible witness and for the reasons stated in paragraphs [20], [21], [63], [70], [71], [72], and [73] of the RPD decision. In a lengthy analysis comprising the rest of its decision, the RPD found that the appellant was not a credible witness because of material inconsistencies between his oral testimony and his Basis of Claim form (BOC) narrative, material internal inconsistencies in his oral testimony, a lack of reasonable corroboration of several aspects of his narrative, and a re-availment to Pakistan from Dubai during the alleged history of persecution that were not reasonably explained. Having reviewed the record and an audiotape of the hearing and assessed all of this evidence independently, the RAD finds that it concurs will all of the reasons that the RPD gave for finding the appellant not to be a credible witness and for discounting his personal supporting documents. [9] The RAD therefore finds that the appellant is not a credible or trustworthy witness and that the central allegations in this case are not true, on a balance of probabilities. CONCLUSION [10] The RAD finds that the RPD's credibility analysis is correct. After its independent analysis of the evidence before the RPD, the RAD finds that it has insufficient credible evidence upon which to determine the appellant to be a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. [11] The RAD therefore finds that the appellant does not face a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground and, on a balance of probabilities, would not be personally subjected to a danger of torture or to a risk to his life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if he returned to Pakistan. [12] The RAD therefore dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the RPD that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA. (signed) JOEL BOUSFIELD Joel Bousfield JULY 27, 2020 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended. 2 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD Record, Exhibits 5, 6 and 8, at pp. 156-171, 332-333, and 360-368. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File / Dossier de la SAR : TB8-26862 RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français 2 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD.25.02 (January, 2020) Disponible en français